Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses that the nonce is single-use and short-lived, that it is not a login nonce and cannot open a session, and that signing the authorization message makes the wallet belong fully to the account.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main action and return values, and every sentence contributes useful workflow detail. It is dense as a single paragraph and could be more scannable, but it avoids filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description fills the gap by explaining what is returned: the exact message, the nonce, and optionally the authorization message. It also explains the next step and the significance of the authorization path, making it complete for this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for `login`: it explains the resulting `authorizationMessage`, what signing it does, and how the wallet becomes fully linked to the account.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: it starts proving a wallet and returns the exact message to sign plus the nonce. It explicitly distinguishes this step from `prove_wallet` by saying the signed message must be passed there unchanged.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly explains the workflow: call this first, sign the returned message with the correct chain-specific method, then pass it to `prove_wallet`. The optional `login` branch is also explained, though there is no explicit statement of when not to use the tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.